Literature DB >> 7496840

Prognostic variables in invasive breast cancer: contribution of comedo versus noncomedo in situ component.

S T Brower1, S Ahmed, P I Tartter, I Bleiweiss, J B Amberson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many invasive breast cancers are accompanied by a variety of noninvasive components. Histological distinctions have been made between these components, but to understand their importance, it is essential to examine their molecular biology.
METHODS: Proliferative indices, oncoproteins, and steroid receptor expression were compared for invasive breast cancers containing comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 35), noncomedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 34), and pure invasive cancers (n = 49). Ploidy, S-phase fraction, Ki-67 staining, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the expression of HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) were evaluated in these tumors.
RESULTS: The comedo-invasive subgroup differed significantly from the noncomedo-invasive subgroup, demonstrating significantly higher mean ploidy (1.6 vs. 1.3; p = 0.0156), S-phase fraction (7.9% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.0066), Ki-67 staining (20.3% vs. 12.0%; p = 0.0058), and HER-2/neu values (2,247 fm/mg vs. 1,014 fm/mg; p = 0.0412) and lower ER (76 fm/mg vs. 339 fm/mg; p = 0.006) and PR values (99 fm/mg vs. 265 fm/mg; p = 0.0608). A higher percentage of comedo-invasive carcinomas demonstrated aneuploidy 71%; p = 0.0158), elevated levels of S-phase fraction (75%; p = 0.0016) and Ki-67 staining (55%; p = 0.0512), overexpression of HER-2/neu oncogene (47%; p = 0.0011), and were ER negative (35%; p = 0.0148), PR negative (47%; p = 0.0073) when compared to noncomedo-invasive carcinomas. Comedo-invasive and noncomedo-invasive tumors were comparable for nodal status and tumor size, but differences were noted for tumor differentiation and percentage of tumors that were > 1 cm. Comedo-invasive tumors were predominantly poorly differentiated (60 vs. 32%) and were > 1 cm (94 vs. 77%, p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Comedo-invasive cancers were comparable to pure invasive cancers for ploidy, S-phase fraction, Ki-67 staining, and ER, PR, and EGFR expression. However, comedo-invasive carcinomas had greater HER-2/neu overexpression when compared to pure invasive tumors (47 vs. 19%; p = 0.0359).
CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the hypothesis that comedo carcinoma is a more aggressive type of ductal carcinoma in situ and may have independent prognostic value when seen in association with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. In invasive tumors, comedo carcinomas are associated with poor prognostic factors, including higher ploidy, S-phase fractions, Ki-67 staining, negative ER and PR status, poorer differentiation, larger tumors, and presence of HER-2/neu oncogene overexpression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7496840     DOI: 10.1007/bf02306378

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  19 in total

1.  Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer.

Authors:  M J van de Vijver; J L Peterse; W J Mooi; P Wisman; J Lomans; O Dalesio; R Nusse
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-11-10       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  DNA ploidy in intraductal breast carcinomas.

Authors:  T A Aasmundstad; O A Haugen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  In situ ductal carcinoma of the breast: implications of disease pattern and treatment.

Authors:  I S Fentiman; N Fagg; R R Millis; J L Hayward
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  D J Slamon; W Godolphin; L A Jones; J A Holt; S G Wong; D E Keith; W J Levin; S G Stuart; J Udove; A Ullrich
Journal:  Science       Date:  1989-05-12       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Duct carcinoma in situ. Pathology and treatment.

Authors:  M D Lagios
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Flow cytometric and histological analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  A P Locker; C Horrocks; A S Gilmour; I O Ellis; C S Dowle; C W Elston; R W Blamey
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ to invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  D C Allred; G M Clark; R Molina; A K Tandon; S J Schnitt; K W Gilchrist; C K Osborne; D C Tormey; W L McGuire
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 8.  Estrogen and progesterone receptor determinations in breast cancer. Technology, biology and clinical significance.

Authors:  S M Thorpe
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 4.089

9.  Estrogen receptor immunohistochemistry in carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  M E Bur; M J Zimarowski; S J Schnitt; S Baker; R Lew
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Quantitative assays of epidermal growth factor receptor in human breast cancer: cut-off points of clinical relevance.

Authors:  S Nicholson; J R Sainsbury; G K Needham; P Chambers; J R Farndon; A L Harris
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1988-07-15       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Immunologic approaches to inhibiting cell-surface-residing oncoproteins in human tumors.

Authors:  D M O'Rourke; M I Greene
Journal:  Immunol Res       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.829

Review 2.  Complexity of signal transduction mediated by ErbB2: clues to the potential of receptor-targeted cancer therapy.

Authors:  P Nagy; A Jenei; S Damjanovich; T M Jovin; J Szölôsi
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.201

3.  Microcalcification of Tumor is a Predictor of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Invasive Breast Carcinoma.

Authors:  Aya Murata; Naoko Sannomiya; Naoki Miyamoto; Naoyuki Ueda; Akira Kamida; Yuki Koyanagi; Haruki Nagira; Eriko Matsuda; Yuki Hashimoto; Kengo Sato; Yumi Hirooka; Keiko Hosoya; Yuzo Takagi; Yuko Tanaka; Kunio Araki; Kiyosuke Ishiguro; Yasuaki Hirooka
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 1.641

4.  MCT1 in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma: Monocarboxylate Metabolism and Aggressive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer M Johnson; Paolo Cotzia; Roberto Fratamico; Lekha Mikkilineni; Jason Chen; Daniele Colombo; Mehri Mollaee; Diana Whitaker-Menezes; Marina Domingo-Vidal; Zhao Lin; Tingting Zhan; Madalina Tuluc; Juan Palazzo; Ruth C Birbe; Ubaldo E Martinez-Outschoorn
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2017-04-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.